Jake Virtanen | #18 | RW

[aGENT]

3 hours ago, The 5th Line said:

There's a difference between crystal balling and just giving my opinion on how I think things are going to turn out and the only reason it becomes drama is because a lot of you can't stand to hear a little bit of criticism.  I then have to respond to 10 different replies and the thread get's thrown off the rails.  If you think I'm being rude or malacious well then maybe toughen up or stop interpreting it in that way.  I want Jake to succeed just as much as the next guy.

 

I'm here to talk hockey, I'm not here to apologize for hurting your feelings. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There you go being a presumptuous arse again. My feelings aren't hurt and your sewing circle bitching is not 'talking hockey'.

 

I'd gladly welcome some. I doubt you'd know how. If you do, feel free to start at any time...

[Toews]

8 hours ago, J.R. said:

There you go being a presumptuous arse again. My feelings aren't hurt and your sewing circle bitching is not 'talking hockey'.

 

I'd gladly welcome some. I doubt you'd know how. If you do, feel free to start at any time...

You called him a drama queen. In my experience those that jump to personal attacks without being personally provoked definitely have some hurt feelings. Its especially amusing as you took exception to a post that comes right out of your own playbook. Judge the difference between these two posts,

 

14 hours ago, The 5th Line said:

Admit that he will be an elite top line player or get out.  Take your non-sense elsewhere

 

On 1/27/2017 at 3:19 AM, J.R. said:

As much as this will likely rile up and annoy the 'Bust crowd', Jake needs some of these 'failure' moments to really let these lessons sink in.

This was in response to a post from Sid about Jake learning from his failures. Both posts are exaggerations, both misrepresent the arguments being presented in this thread. No one is calling Virtanen a bust yet just like no one thinks he is an "elite top line player". This isn't the first time I have seen you do this. Sensationalize the arguments of posters you disagree with to make them sound irrational and stupid. Now you know how that feels. 

Edited February 6, 2017 by Toews

[Phat Fingers]

11 hours ago, alfstonker said:

This is not definitive but there is more and more research being done that is pointing to character traits being inherited. I'm not getting into a whole debate on the subject but suffice to say your dismissiveness of what I wrote is a bit arrogant.

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/11/15/health/empathy-genes/

 

When you talk of character it is not a surface condition, what you are referring to are taught habits i.e. a conditioned response which is entirely different. 

 

Sounds a bit like alternative facts Alfstonker. A character response would to take a mulligan and move on.  When you are as wrong 

admit it and move on. It builds character... see what I did there  

 

Psychology is an envolving science/medium.  Empathy and Character are different things. Not entirely separate, but different. They both are nurtured, but to truly be empathetic requires a bit of nature first. Character is an aqquired trait, as is learning right from wrong.  

 

EW

[alfstonker]

12 hours ago, HomeBrew said:

From the source you provided: 

"Oxytocin receptors have been shown to be modified by a person's environment, for example, so life experiences presumably play a large role too, he says."

 

If you want to get into a debate about social determinism, I am more than game to oblige. 

I see no need. However you fail to identify what has been so bad in JV environment that could lead to the state of mind under discussion. I think you will find your statement applies to more extreme factors - not some boy who has grown up with everything he could likely want.

 

I said there is research which shows that character traits can be shown to be inherited. Which vindicated my comment. I have no wish to spend any more time on a JV thread than I need to.

 

I only commented because I dispute the opinion of some posters that Green is some kind of Svengali - or that character can be taught.

[alfstonker]

1 hour ago, Eastcoast meets Westcoast said:

Sounds a bit like alternative facts Alfstonker. A character response would to take a mulligan and move on.  When you are as wrong 

admit it and move on. It builds character... see what I did there  

 

Psychology is an envolving science/medium.  Empathy and Character are different things. Not entirely separate, but different. They both are nurtured, but to truly be empathetic requires a bit of nature first. Character is an aqquired trait, as is learning right from wrong.  

 

EW

I saw you lose an argument, that's all. Have a nice day.

I'll leave you with this - If Jake has got to his age and still is unable to discern right from wrong then "Maestro Green" has his work cut out. 

[aGENT]

4 hours ago, Toews said:

You called him a drama queen. In my experience those that jump to personal attacks without being personally provoked definitely have some hurt feelings. Its especially amusing as you took exception to a post that comes right out of your own playbook. Judge the difference between these two posts,

 

 

This was in response to a post from Sid about Jake learning from his failures. Both posts are exaggerations, both misrepresent the arguments being presented in this thread. No one is calling Virtanen a bust yet just like no one thinks he is an "elite top line player". This isn't the first time I have seen you do this. Sensationalize the arguments of posters you disagree with to make them sound irrational and stupid. Now you know how that feels. 

Nope,  no feelings hurt and he was being a drama queen. And yes, people have labeled him bust. And no, they're not the same. 

Edited February 6, 2017 by J.R.

[Derp...]

Gaunce and Jake might play together now?

[elvis15]

23 hours ago, goblix said:

Ehlers on his draft year had around 100 points in 50 games in the QMJHL, Virtanen 71 points in 71 games in the WHL.

The Q has been known to be a more offensive league and less structured than WHL that said the points are still in Ehlers favor.

 

However, remember 2 years ago, everyone and I mean everyone was crying for a big body, speed and physical presence, I.E some pushback. Also teams seem to like size and speed combination so that also swings into Virtanen favor, this is arguable for sure.

...

While size and speed does get some favour with teams, it was not even close to everyone crying for a big body, physical presence. There were plenty, sure, but they were just the loudest and would shout down many like myself who knew we also needed high-end/elite skill in the system to eventually replace the Sedins. And while we had high hopes for players like Horvat, Shinkaruk, Cassels, Hutton, etc. there were a lot of question marks for who could be that top line/top pairing type of player that would help provide significant offence (which was also something even the loudest minority was asking for).

 

Hindsight's 20/20 and time will tell who was the best pick in that range, but there was a lot of debate on who our pick should be outside the almost guaranteed top 5 that year.

[goblix]

3 minutes ago, elvis15 said:

While size and speed does get some favour with teams, it was not even close to everyone crying for a big body, physical presence. There were plenty, sure, but they were just the loudest and would shout down many like myself who knew we also needed high-end/elite skill in the system to eventually replace the Sedins. And while we had high hopes for players like Horvat, Shinkaruk, Cassels, Hutton, etc. there were a lot of question marks for who could be that top line/top pairing type of player that would help provide significant offence (which was also something even the loudest minority was asking for).

 

Hindsight's 20/20 and time will tell who was the best pick in that range, but there was a lot of debate on who our pick should be outside the almost guaranteed top 5 that year.

Well to be fair they aren't wrong either

 

We're in agreement! I was and am still in favor of creative and dynamic players but that doesn't mean we don't need the big bodied physical and offensive presence that Virtanen looked to be.

 

My main point that is that Virtanen was not a bad pick, may not of been your choice but still not a bad pick at the time and still not a bad pick considering he's 20 and still has things to polish / learn.

And as you say only time will tell which player was the best pick, cough Ehlers, cough but to fret about it is giving into the evil trap of hindsight.

[Tiger-Hearted]

51 minutes ago, Derp... said:

Gaunce and Jake might play together now?

Brendan Gaunce being sent down to the Comets is going to be great for Jake. Here's another former first round pick who enjoyed junior hockey success and is now biding his time in his professional development. Brendan is only two years older and has been doing whatever assignment he's been given with stride. That's the kind of influence that should rub off on Jake. And it's a huge bonus when it comes from a fellow peer in his age bracket. Burrows and Kesler paid their dues together in Manitoba and the rest is history. The same thing could maybe happen with Jake and Brendan. 

[Toews]

2 hours ago, goblix said:

Well to be fair they aren't wrong either

 

We're in agreement! I was and am still in favor of creative and dynamic players but that doesn't mean we don't need the big bodied physical and offensive presence that Virtanen looked to be.

 

My main point that is that Virtanen was not a bad pick, may not of been your choice but still not a bad pick at the time and still not a bad pick considering he's 20 and still has things to polish / learn.

And as you say only time will tell which player was the best pick, cough Ehlers, cough but to fret about it is giving into the evil trap of hindsight.

What is an example of a bad pick? I keep hearing people say that we "needed" a "big bodied physical and offensive presence". Why do needs factor into the equation at all? The Canucks were at a point in time where the cupboards were almost entirely empty and there was just an aging declining core that everyone felt could be leveraged into futures. Horvat, Shinkaruk, Cassels, Hutton, Corrado were the few notable prospects. Looking at that prospect pool you would easily notice that the Canucks needed just about everything from forwards to defenseman and even goalies as Luongo and Schneider had both been traded. So why prioritize anything over the other? Why not just select the best player on your draft board and not put any thought into team needs.

 

Imo this should be the goal for almost every team when you walk up to the draft board. Its maddening to me that fans want to see the team draft for what is lacking in the current team rather than what maybe lacking in the team 3-4 years from now. You have to as a GM have enough foresight to be able to look past what is required today as opposed to what is required in the future. If you are expecting a draft pick to solve your issues with size and toughness then you are a poor GM. I say this because it takes 2-3 years for all but the best of picks to make an impact at the NHL level. You are trying to solve today's problem with a solution that isn't going to available in that 2-3 years time frame. A lot can change in one years time let alone 2-3.

 

Getting back to the point about a "bad pick". Let me ask you a question. The Rangers picked Dylan Mcilrath at 10th overall above Cam Fowler. Most Rangers fans hated the pick but a few continued to defend that pick citing the reason that there was no one on the Rangers blue line at the time who could be a big physical presence. Opponents were taking easy liberties with the Rangers defense and did not have to take any punishment for taking up key positions in the Rangers zone. So by this logic, is Mcilrath not a good pick? The logic being that the Rangers were addressing a need while they made the selection.

 

I judge picks by what value they bring to your team over the course of their career compared to what was available at that spot. I don't factor in the logic behind the selection as you can justify every single selection. To give you an example a guy like Hugh Jessiman was a terrible pick considering all the talent in the 1st round went on to have good careers. Jessiman on the other hand only played like 5 games or so. I don't really care what reasons the Rangers cite for making that pick. A bad pick is a bad pick.

Edited February 6, 2017 by Toews

[Beary Sweet]

Jake has all the time in the world to develop into the player he and we all envision him to be. I think his ceiling is a top line winger alongside Bo and Boeser in the future but the way he is developing, I will be elated if he developed into a middle 6 forward. He can blow by defenceman, has a nice electric shot. he just needs to get his overall, 2 way game going and if he gets that going and adds that to his game while getting some production, he will make a strong case for a call up during this season or get into training camp and see what he has improved on and whether or not he deserves a spot on next year's roster which will feature a lot of new faces, including Boeser, Gaudette, Brisebois, Neill, you know the Benning picks. It will be interesting how this offseason goes factoring in the expansion draft too

[elvis15]

59 minutes ago, goblix said:

Well to be fair they aren't wrong either

 

We're in agreement! I was and am still in favor of creative and dynamic players but that doesn't mean we don't need the big bodied physical and offensive presence that Virtanen looked to be.

 

My main point that is that Virtanen was not a bad pick, may not of been your choice but still not a bad pick at the time and still not a bad pick considering he's 20 and still has things to polish / learn.

And as you say only time will tell which player was the best pick, cough Ehlers, cough but to fret about it is giving into the evil trap of hindsight.

Agreed as well, but to use the highest pick we've had in a long time on such a player when players with significant skill were available was not a move I would have made. There's no question him being a local kid played a factor in the pick.

[CRAZY_4_NAZZY]

Who are Virtanen's regular linemates in Utica?

 

Is it still Wacey Hamilton and Carter Bancks?  

[aGENT]

9 minutes ago, Toews said:

What is an example of a bad pick? I keep hearing people say that we "needed" a "big bodied physical and offensive presence". Why do needs factor into the equation at all? The Canucks were at a point in time where the cupboards were almost entirely empty and there was just an aging declining core that everyone felt could be leveraged into futures. Horvat, Shinkaruk, Cassels, Hutton, Corrado were the few notable prospects. Looking at that prospect pool you would easily notice that the Canucks needed just about everything from forwards to defenseman and even goalies as Luongo and Schneider had both been traded. So why prioritize anything over the other? Why not just select the best player on your draft board and not put any thought into team needs.

Why would anyone assume that's why Benning picked Jake? I don't think he's nearly as short sighted as some Canuck fans are. And I certainly don't think he was expecting Jake to 'fix' the 2015 team's problems and hence 'prioritized him'. I mean I agree with you with the BPA principle but I REALLY don't think Benning strayed from that.

 

As you said, we needed literally everything. That includes what Jake can bring. And if he becomes:

 

21 hours ago, J.R. said:

If Jake can learn to play close to a Jannik Hansen with size and put up around 40 points in his prime, I still take him at 6 all day, every day.

 

There's more to hockey than GAP stat lines. 

 

...that's still a good pick.

 

In hindsight, knowing how Ehlers has turned out so far would I maybe take him instead? Possibly. I'd likely still take Virt over Nylander though and we won't know 'for sure' who the better player will be for another 5+ years.

 

By all means, if Virtanen can't become a pro  in the next couple years and start becoming that player, sure you can call it a 'bad pick' then I suppose, if that's your thing. It's still far too early and impatient to be proclaiming anything at this point though.

[goblix]

8 minutes ago, Toews said:

What is an example of a bad pick? I keep hearing people say that we "needed" a "big bodied physical and offensive presence". Why do needs factor into the equation at all? The Canucks were at a point in time where the cupboards were almost entirely empty and there was just an aging declining core that everyone felt could be leveraged into futures. Horvat, Shinkaruk, Cassels, Hutton, Corrado were the few notable prospects. Looking at that prospect pool you would easily notice that the Canucks needed just about everything from forwards to defenseman and even goalies as Luongo and Schneider had both been traded. So why prioritize anything over the other? Why not just select the best player on your draft board and not put any thought into team needs.

 

Imo this should be the goal for almost every team when you walk up to the draft board. Its maddening to me that fans want to see the team draft for what is lacking in the current team rather than what maybe lacking in the team 3-4 years from now. You have to as a GM have enough foresight to be able to look past what is required today as opposed to what is required in the future. If you are expecting a draft pick to solve your issues with size and toughness then you are a poor GM. I say this because it takes 2-3 years for all but the best of picks to make an impact at the NHL level. You are trying to solve today's problem with a solution that isn't going to available in that 2-3 years time frame. A lot can change in one years time let alone 2-3.

 

Getting back to the point about a "bad pick". Let me ask you a question. The Rangers picked Dylan Mcilrath at 10th overall above Cam Fowler. Most Rangers fans hated the pick but a few continued to defend that pick citing the reason that there was no one on the Rangers blue line at the time who could be a big physical presence. Opponents were taking easy liberties with the Rangers defense and did not have to take any punishment for taking up key positions in the Rangers zone. So by this logic, is Mcilrath not a bad pick? The logic being that the Rangers were addressing a need while they made the selection.

 

I judge picks by what value they bring to your team over the course of their career compared to what was available at that spot. I don't factor in the logic behind the selection as you can justify every single selection. To give you an example a guy like Hugh Jessiman was a terrible pick considering all the talent in the 1st round went on to have good careers. Jessiman on the other hand only played like 5 games or so. I don't really care what reasons the Rangers cite for making that pick. A bad pick is a bad pick.

My point is two fold,

First, is that picks 5-10 ish were very much debateable. How a player turns out does not dictate if he was a bad pick at the time, it makes it BECOME a bad pick but then the normal hindsight argument comes into play. 

Second, is that we needed physical offensive players as much as we needed offensive creative players. Speed and Size usually beats the tie breaker and the fact that he was a local boy probably helped.

 

IMO BPA is in general a good way of thinking for the draft but if you want to use Edmonton as an example (which i hate to do) you build on BPA and pick forward after forward then you lose to other facets in the game that can destroy your teams development. They lacked goaltending and defense and it arguably destroyed Yaks and Schultz career.

 

For your example, I can't recall the draft positions that Mcilrath was under but quick looks it seems like it's quite off the board and based on that info you can determine that it was a bad pick. Again Virtanen was not 'off the board' thus shouldn't be deemed as a bad pick until the whole story of his career is written.

 

2014 Mock Drafts

http://www.mynhldraft.com/2014-NHL-Mock-Draft/

https://www.draftsite.com/nhl/mock-draft/2014/

 

2010 Mock Drafts

http://www.mynhldraft.com/2010-NHL-Mock-Draft/

http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=61580

 

** ugh looking at that 2010 draft, that's when we traded our first and Grabner for Ballard and Oreskovich  thanks for drawing up bad memories  

[goblix]

15 minutes ago, elvis15 said:

Agreed as well, but to use the highest pick we've had in a long time on such a player when players with significant skill were available was not a move I would have made. There's no question him being a local kid played a factor in the pick.

Yup again that was your opinion at the time and I would've shared that opinion with you but others may of not and that wouldn't be wrong either.

[Toews]

30 minutes ago, J.R. said:

Why would anyone assume that's why Benning picked Jake? I don't think he's nearly as short sighted as some Canuck fans are. And I certainly don't think he was expecting Jake to 'fix' the 2015 team's problems and hence 'prioritized him'. I mean I agree with you with the BPA principle but I REALLY don't think Benning strayed from that.

 

As you said, we needed literally everything. That includes what Jake can bring. And if he becomes:

 

 

...that's still a good pick.

 

In hindsight, knowing how Ehlers has turned out so far would I maybe take him instead? Possibly. I'd likely still take Virt over Nylander though and we won't know 'for sure' who the better player will be for another 5+ years.

 

By all means, if Virtanen can't become a pro  in the next couple years and start becoming that player, sure you can call it a 'bad pick' then I suppose, if that's your thing. It's still far too early and impatient to be proclaiming anything at this point though.

I am not presuming that Benning chose Virtanen to solve a need, just to be clear. I am questioning the people that try to justify the pick by saying that it was the "right pick" because of what the Canucks were lacking at the time. If you are picking BPA then what the organization is lacking is irrelevant. I have always believed that Benning selected Virtanen because he thought he was the best out of what was remaining on the board. It wasn't because of what was lacking on the team at the time like some in this thread are suggesting.

 

"Possibly"? You would "possibly" take someone who is on pace for 70 points in the NHL? You wouldn't take a guy who has more goals in the NHL than Jake has points in the AHL? And you take offense when @The 5th Line says you would take Horvat over McDavid. If there was a re-draft I would easily take both those guys, and even some more after them. You can refer to this as "crystal ball fretting" or whatever you call it but I haven't been impressed with Virtanen's progression thus far. No way do I take him over players who have shown growth and steady progression since being drafted. Maybe that does change in the future but the list of players I would rather have today is turning out to be a rather long one.

[Toews]

57 minutes ago, goblix said:

My point is two fold,

First, is that picks 5-10 ish were very much debateable. How a player turns out does not dictate if he was a bad pick at the time, it makes it BECOME a bad pick but then the normal hindsight argument comes into play. 

Second, is that we needed physical offensive players as much as we needed offensive creative players. Speed and Size usually beats the tie breaker and the fact that he was a local boy probably helped.

 

IMO BPA is in general a good way of thinking for the draft but if you want to use Edmonton as an example (which i hate to do) you build on BPA and pick forward after forward then you lose to other facets in the game that can destroy your teams development. They lacked goaltending and defense and it arguably destroyed Yaks and Schultz career.

 

For your example, I can't recall the draft positions that Mcilrath was under but quick looks it seems like it's quite off the board and based on that info you can determine that it was a bad pick. Again Virtanen was not 'off the board' thus shouldn't be deemed as a bad pick until the whole story of his career is written.

 

2014 Mock Drafts

http://www.mynhldraft.com/2014-NHL-Mock-Draft/

https://www.draftsite.com/nhl/mock-draft/2014/

 

2010 Mock Drafts

http://www.mynhldraft.com/2010-NHL-Mock-Draft/

http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=61580

 

** ugh looking at that 2010 draft, that's when we traded our first and Grabner for Ballard and Oreskovich  thanks for drawing up bad memories  

I don't really consider "off the board" as a determination as whether a pick is good or bad. Anyway we can agree to disagree in the way we evaluate picks.

[goblix]

4 minutes ago, Toews said:

I don't really consider "off the board" as a determination as whether a pick is good or bad. Anyway we can agree to disagree in the way we evaluate picks.

Well what I meant by that is scouts were touting Virtanen as a very good prospect, great intangibles, great speed, great shot. Shooting in the same range as Nylander and Ehlers. What you evaluate as better picks is your opinion but doesn't make the other choices as bad picks.

 

Much like Yak or Murray, Matthews or Laine, Hall or Seguin. Both were deemed as 1A // 1B with slight edges favouring on or the other. Much like this 2017 draft where Patrick and Hischer are so close either are good choices, choosing the other is not a bad choice. Yet if they choose someone else then it would look to be a bad pick because that's not really what the projections are laid out to be.

 

Guess similar idea could be thought of with CBJ picking PLD over Puljujarvi. 

 

Honestly I think we are getting hung up on semantics, as I said to many, I would've preferred creative forward at that time like Ehlers or Nylander but I can see that Virtanen wasn't a bad pick but perhaps a worse pick based on my opinion.

 

Again, Virtanen has some good tools to be a NHLer, if he starts performing then all of this becomes a moot point.